Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Feb 13, 2011 2:11pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Peak Oil/IMF SDR Observations For BD (Very Non-Dead)

BD -

Okay, this has taken far more time than I originally thought it would - mostly because I was attempting to channel and balance the right mix of Dr. King, Cormac McCarthy, Will Allen and Gandhi. Not too sure there is a correct way to mix that crowd (although Will Allen would probably say compost all of 'em - himself included - and throw them in the vermicomposters)

So here goes........

I won't belabor the Peak Oil point too much. It is a fact. Oil discovery in the US peaked in 1934. Oil production in the US peaked in 1974. Remember the 40 year lag. The US currently consumes about 17-25 million bpd. Is this a big number? Any guesses. The world currently consumes 85 million bpd.

So yes, 3% of the world's population consumes around 25% of the oil resources. Yeah, that's fair. And we wonder why we are universally despised?

All of the 52 pound brained Ivy League educated "experts" in this country do not have a clue about Peak Oil, nor a inkling of an understanding of the link between our economy and their "for shit" economic growth models. Our economic models REQUIRE the consumption of excess energy and excess resources for continued growth to sustain the machine. We, (the world and the US) have neither energy (oil) or resources in excess to fuel this "growth". So in short, the economic models are fatally flawed and the sytem simply will implode.

Our leaders do not understand exponential growth from a requirements standpoint and they are entirely clueless when it comes to compounding. Einstein has been credited with saying that the most powerful force in the universe is the exponential function and compound interest. Regardless of whether he really said it - it's true.

The bottom line is this - there is no more easy oil and there is nothing in development right now that exists on a sufficient scale, at a reasonable cost that can be implemented in time to replace oil generated energy in such a manner that we can transition seamlessly with a minimum of disruption.

Step back and look at everything that depends on oil. Transportation, food distribution, just about everything we consume is produced somewhere else and requires oil based energy to get to us. Get ready to be downsized.

Now we have the Wikileaks release the other day that claims the US is concerned that the Saudis have overstated their oil reserves by 40% or 300 billion barrels.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/09/wikileaks-saudi-oil-reserves-exaggerated_n_820641.html

Wowee President Obama, that is a ginormous amount of oil that would have solved all of our problems. For about 10 years.

300 billion barrels/85 million barrels per day = 3529 days or about 10 years worth of oil.

This assumes that all of the oil is easy to extract. It's not - that Saudis are already injecting millions of gallons of water into their existing fields to maintain sufficient pressures to extract the oil using current technology.

You also cannot forget the Energy Return On Energy Invested variable. It takes energy to extract oil. Back in the hey day of Tennessee Jed Clampett we were extracting about 200 barrels of oil per 1 barrel's worth of energy. That ration today is now down around 3 barrels of oil per 1 barrel of oil derived energy expense.

The oil industry guys and gals will tell you that oil will always be avaialble - that is true. They tell you that oil extraction and production will always be capable of being profitable for a given price per barrel - that is also true.

But when you ask them what happens when it takes more than a barrel's worth of energy to extract a barrel of oil, they look at you and blink stupidly displaying their acute rectal myopia.

And so it goes.

Now in the exchange of posts, bd found another link that he asked me to comment on and this is the part that has presented the biggest challenge for me. I will try to keep my thoughts focused - and please understand, these are my opinions. But they are my opinions that I have formulated based on existing facts - so if the facts change or new info were to come to light, I reserve the right to change my opinions. Nuff said.....

To set the stage, here is the link to the article bd asked about

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/10/markets/dollar/index.htm

If you read it you probably said, yeah, so what. That's what the government gets paid to take care of. Except we in this country have given our elected officials far too much credit when it comes to their intelligence and ability to make good decisions. I don't want to spend a lot of time in a discussion of whether or not the good or right decision is always necessary the moral decision.

Is it right to shoot a 10 year old boy in the head?

Is it right to shoot a 10 year old boy in the head if he is carrying a backpack full of IED triggers to a building where someone is waiting to take delivery of the triggers so he can pass them on to someone who is going to manufacture IEDS that will indiscriminately target soldiers and innocent civilians alike?

After you have shot the 10 year old boy in the head, is it right to shoot his 6 year old sister in the head when she comes out to pick up the backpack to finish the delivery?

You get the point.

So back to our elected officials. They aren't as smart as you think they are, and you aren't as stupid as THEY think YOU are. But they do hope that if they tell you that, you will believe it and unquestioningly abdicate decision making.

The IMF article contains nothing new. The dollar is a fiat currency and EVERY FIAT CURRENCY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD HAS FAILED.

The dollar will fail. It is my opinion that unless you get hit by a bus tomorrow, you will see the dollar collapse in your lifetime and probably within the next 15-20 years. Unless of course there is an external triggering event that Helicopter Ben Bernanke and the rest of the jackwagons on Capitol Hill have conveniently and arrogantly chosen to ignore and/or discount.

At first pass, my reaction to the thread was "Yeah, so what." And then I read it again - and the following sentences in parens sent chills up my spine

("Over time, there may also be a role for the SDR to contribute to a more stable international monetary system," he said.

The goal is to have a reserve asset for central banks that better reflects the global economy since the dollar is vulnerable to swings in the domestic economy and changes in U.S. policy.

In addition to serving as a reserve currency, the IMF also proposed creating SDR-denominated bonds, which could reduce central banks' dependence on U.S. Treasuries. The Fund also suggested that certain assets, such as oil and gold, which are traded in U.S. dollars, could be priced using SDRs.

Oil prices usually go up when the dollar depreciates. Supporters say using SDRs to price oil on the global market could help prevent spikes in energy prices that often occur when the dollar weakens significantly.

The dollar alternatives
Fred Bergsten, director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said at a conference in Washington that IMF member nations should agree to create $2 trillion worth of SDRs over the next few years.

SDRs, he said, "will further diversify the system.")

SDRs will further diversify the system?

What does this really mean?

SDRs will put distance between the US dollar and the rest of the world's currencies. SDRs will allow a reasonably stable currency to emerge as a possible solution to the problems inherent in pinning the world's reserve currency to the dollar. The dollar, which functions as the medium of exchange in a debt based monetary syste. A system that mandates the creation of debt to facilitate the exchange of payment for goods and services. Big deal, you have to pay for your stuff somehow right? Section 8 (Powers of Congress) of the Constitution states that Congress has the authority and duty "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures"

In 1913, we abdicated this responsibility and turned over this function to the Federal Reserve. There is nothing Federal about the Federal Reserve. It is subject to no oversight or Congressional authority. It has no auditing responsibility. It takes US taxpayer dollars and funnels them out of the country. It concentrates wealth in the hands of the international banking cartel.

The international, unregulated, central banking system controls via issuance of debt - a claim on future labor - because that is how the system is set up. The beauty of the Central Banking system is now - with the confluence of events in the world's economies, the world's energy issues, and the world's environmental issues (resource depletion, impact of climate change on food production) all of this is coming to a head and it is simply going to collapse under it's own weight.

Back to the IMF article......the extracted text should scare the shit out of you because what it is in essence saying is, the dollar is no longer the go-to, stable medium of exchange it once was. SDRs will allow for countries to begin backing away from the dollar. Right now 67-70% of all of the world's currencies are denominated against the dollar so as goes the dollar, so goes the rest of the world. What the introductio of SDRs allows is, for example, oh, let's pick China, China to start reducing the yaun's exposure to the dollar. China has already begun backing away - they have slowed down their purchase of USD backed Treasuries. Some say that if China can reduce their exposure to about 40% (it is around 80% now) then it would be worth the disruption to revalue the yaun and drive the dollar to zero overnight.

Last man standing syndrome.

Then what?

Your dollar purchases nothing. The US can no longer buy imported oil, because they don't have a medium of exchange to play in the system with. Will you go to work? Why? They are going to pay you with something that can't buy anything. I still haven't decided if we are going to see a deflationary period, followed by inflation/hyperinflation or if we are going to see slow, steady inflationary rises or flat out explosion into an Argentina, Zimbabwe or Weimar scenario.

Your local grocery store has about 3 days supply of fresh food. People will figure out real quick that something is wrong when their ATM and credit cards don't work. Well I'll just go to the bank and get some cash - and they will see the line at the teller window and say hmmmmmm. Now we see the result of a fractional reserve banking system. The banks don't have any money. A bank run shuts down the banking system.

Now you have scared and pissed off people and the number is growing. How many in the bank lobby are armed and how close is someone to the Hunter S. Thompson edge - "The EDGE, there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over"

Here in SE Virginia the store shelves look like a plaugue of locusts descended when a hurricane come through. But that is a transient event - because, the trucks pull up and deliver the fresh produce from California, or Chile, or Florida or wherever.

But wait.

This time, the trucks don't pull up, because there isn't enough diesel available to transport the food to keep the shelves stocked with a 3 day supply. Now the trucks only show up once every 2 weeks. Now the crowds are bigger, more scared, more angry and all closer to the Edge.

Try this one on....now a group of people figure out that the truck shows up on Wednesday morning. So they head out with a group of "friends" and they intercept the truck as it is coming down Indian River road. They set it up by staging an "accident" blocking the lanes. The driver has a shotgun shoved in his face and is given the choice of opening the trailer or getting pink misted. Easy choice for most. So the thieves take what they can grab quickly and leave the rest to spoil. Don't forget that local law enforcement is reactive, and has very limited deterrent affect.

So the next time, the shipping company sends an armed escort and now we have 12 dead in a shootout on Indian River Road.

Far fetched? I don't think so.

Will everything go Mad Max overnight? Very doubtful. There are communities that will be able to get by. The Amish have been living this way for hundreds of years. Local communities - really local, not just geographically local - with CSAs and dairy, meat and egg co-ops will do okay.

But what of the suburban sprawl that is within a stone's throw of urban concentrations? It is not my intent to insult, but the urban centers in this country also have the highest concentration of people on welfare and entitlement programs. Those systems are now gone - so where do these people look? They look outward, and since this country has done such a superb job of fostering an entitlement mentality and creating a nanny state, these same people will look to the suburbs of Springfield, and Alexandria and Reston, and Saint Claire Shores - you name it. And they will move out with their actions completely justified in their minds - they have what I need and I am going to get it.

People will die. People will be forced to make decisions about taking themselves into places in their minds and in their behavior towards their fellow man that they never thought they would have to make.

It is easy to put on the cloak of 'Survivalist bravado' or benevolent provider when the lights are on, the fire is going, the gas heat is running, the Suburban has a full tank of gas (paid for with a credit card), etc., etc., etc.

It is quite another to fall back on survivalist bravado when 6 armed intruders just knocked your front door in and are holding guns to your children's heads demanding food, fuel and water.

It is also quite another thing to say you will feed every starving mother and child begging at your front door while your own family is on the verge of starvation.

It is easy to say what we would do in a hypothetical situation, but how many of us would actually make THAT decision and take THAT action?

Everyone here is no doubt familiar with the parable of "The Ant and the Grasshopper". WInter is coming folks - the depth and degree may vary, but it is indeed coming.

We are going to see big changes in our lives in the next 20 years, not all of it is going to be good or fair or right.

For what it's worth, I'm making my own plans based on what I think is coming. I'd like to think I know how I will react as different scenarios play out and occur but I just don't know.

I will leave you with what some will no doubt think (and tell me) is a bit naive and self-indulgent - and I am okay with that - but I realize I am a flawed person. We all are. That said, I am not going to live my life thinking that my final reward is here on this Earth. Instead I am going to struggle with my failings, I am going to face my daily dragons, live my life the way I have been told and taught is a pretty good approach and hope that it ends up being "good enough".

BD, I don't know if that's what you were looking for, and I apologize sort of, for the length of the post. If anyone feels so inclined, feel free to take it extra forum and offline. mandojamr at yaw who daught com

Peace my friends.

This post was modified by Mandojammer on 2011-02-13 22:11:55

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: rastamon Date: Feb 13, 2011 3:56pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Peak Oil/IMF SDR Observations For BD (Very Non-Dead)

mando, my paranoia is that there are politicians in Amerika that hope for revolution and strife. Evil folks who only wish control and power. He who has the guns, has the power.

The Egypt thing is nice and all that, but at ANY time, Mubarak and his Army could have squashed the people.
A few Daisy Cutters into the square..ka-boom! Problem solved. What, are the people going to bring stones to a gun fight and win? ya-sure.

China took care of their little revolt. So did Iran.

The Muslim Brotherhood with the help of outside "Community Organizers" will win in the end. Obama and his faith win. Period.

This post was modified by rastamon on 2011-02-13 23:56:38

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Feb 13, 2011 4:31pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Peak Oil/IMF SDR Observations For BD (Very Non-Dead)

So Obama and the Church of Christ win? What exactly do they win and why?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Arbuthnot Date: Feb 13, 2011 4:57pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Peak Oil/IMF SDR Observations For BD (Very Non-Dead)

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Feb 13, 2011 5:24pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Peak Oil/IMF SDR Observations For BD (Very Non-Dead)

C'mon Arb, we should be doing cartwheels over the fact that the Bakken Oil Shale deposits will generate 200 seconds of additional oil for use each day.

That is almost three minutes man!!!

Yeah, I know, it's a lifetime if it's three minutes listening to Donna's caterwauling or Brent tinkling on his organ.

Disclaimer: I only said that last part to shake out the lurkers. No insult was intended.




Okay, maybe a little insult was intended.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: rastamon Date: Feb 13, 2011 2:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Peak Oil/IMF SDR Observations For BD (Very Non-Dead)

Wow! Thats outstanding! just what i was goin to say to
dead-head_Monte..(uhuh)
But your post makes too much sense, I'll have to check with Al Gore :-P

(thank god my product came in, more mellooooow now)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 14, 2011 5:46am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: It's been worse before...maybe, maybe not...dunno

Hey MJ--interesting stuff...I won't quibble bout the various facts/assumptions/estimates that go into the doom & gloom scenario (that's not meant as a knock, just a summary of your position). I just wanted to note for those that want to take the alternative viewpoint (Polly Annas of the world), it's the safe bet. Why? Is there any basis in fact that suggests any key assumption is faulty, that any one or two tipping pt issues can be flipped to "our" advantage and avoid the catastrophe?

Don't know, and don't have the energy to work on it; have endorsed the downside scenarios too many times in the past and been burned. All you have to think of is "whacky California Environmentalist background" and you'll instantly recognize the phenotype. EG, I was on board with the Cal physics profs that used airtight models to predict the temp of our planet at roughly 50C, EVERYWHERE, by 2000 (back in 75). Of course, that didn't work out so well (er, bad...well, okay, I am actually glad it failed).

But, that's the upside on every doom & gloom scenario over the past 200 yrs. Malthus had the first airtight argument. Current resource levels, forseeable increases in productivity + pop growth = end of the world as they knew it by 1850. What happened? Industrial revolution changed baseline parameters. How about agricultural economists and 1933? It was going to be all over by 1975 given current models of plant productivity, blah, blah, blah. But, along came Watson and Crick, and much more refined twists on the Green Revolution, and bingo: plant productivity goes thru the roof.

One could go on and on, but you get the idea: there is always, always a techno fix to each and every worst case scenario proposed over the past 200 yrs. Often not what I wanted to hear as an Ed Abbey sort hoping we'd see the End of Empire, and perhaps restore a whacky balance to the Earth's ecosystems, but it never plays out that way.

So, I am not one to endorse head in the sand approaches to any of these issues, and have no problem with one and all speaking out as to the fundamental flaws in current monetary policy, oil based economies, etc., etc., etc; but for those concerned about their kids, which in the end is all that matters (well, okay, I am that old), the good news is that one way or another, I'd take the safe bet: in short, the worst case scenario ain't gonna happen. It never does, and there's no getting around it. As to why that's so, it doesn't really matter. That's the next whiz kid's science project, or benefit to some activity somewhere that appears to have no possible benefit at the time, but turns out to be a huge help done the line in another realm.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Feb 14, 2011 7:27am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: It's been worse before...maybe, maybe not...dunno

WT -

Good stuff and as always greatly appreciate the point-counterpoint.

Here's why it's different this time........

The Industrial Revolution coincided with the discovery of cheap and abundant energy from oil and coal. The Industrial Revolution occurred largely in part because we had found a way to consume energy and resources faster. Economic growth was easy back then, because both energy and resources existed in abundant excess. We simply were able to consume more faster - but arguably at least we made stuff that was relatively useful. So yes, while the baseline parameters changed regarding efficiency and output, so did the baseline parameters of resource consumption.

Plant productivity now depends on consumption of oil derived pesticides and fertilizers - phosphorous, potassium, manganese, magnesium, etc. Resources all - that exist in finite quantity.

Every single aspect of putting food on someone's plate is dependent on........wait for it..........oil.

Pushing capitalistic greed aside (what else do you call it when we grow enough food to feed the world, yet people are starving because they can't afford it or it isn't sent to them). Planting, tending, reaping, processing, distribution, shipping and ultimately, preparation.

It's different this time because the scope of our dependency on oil derived energy exists on an almost unfathomable scale.

It's different this time because even if a new source of energy were to be developed, it doesn't exist on sufficient scale to replace just the energy portion of the oil equation. Even if we had sufficent energy generation capacity, we lack the infrastructure to handle and distribute said energy. Even if Marty McFly were to drop down in your driveway with his Mr. Fusion powered DeLorean.....

There were 246 million cars in the US last year - almost all of them ran on gasoline or diesel. Automobile manufacturers would require huge amounts of capital AND resources to retool their production lines to manufacture all electric cars - should Mr. Fusions be in the market. That would take years and there is nothing out there right now on sufficient scale. Don't forget that all of those 246 million batteries require heavy metals.....yet another finite resource.

Stepping back again to just the energy piece. In order to replace the energy production attributed and dependent on foreign oil we would need to increase our solar output by 2000x current level. Not 2000%, 2000 TIMES. Guess what we make photovoltaic cells and other key components of solar energy systems out of?

Yup, petroleum and rare earth metals - finite and post peak resources.

Nearly all detractors of the Peak Oil discussion point to technology as the savior. But what they fail to address, is unlike the Industrial Revolution that was able to capitalize on wanton consumption of cheap, abundant and excess energy, whatever technology that is just around the corner is also likely dependent on consumption of resources and energy - just to get the technology proven. The amount of resource consumption to make such saving technologies viable solutions from a distributive infrastructure standpoint I don't think is understood, nor is the required scope appreciated. New technologies typically require new supporting infrastructures, or significant upgrading of existing infrastructure.

So unless some bubba in Missouri has figured out a way to circumvent the law of conservation of energy, I think we are looking at some big changes and some very interesting times.

Like you said, it might be worse, it might not be. What it is most definitely going to be is very, very different.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dead-head_Monte Date: Feb 14, 2011 9:12am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: It's been worse before...maybe, maybe not...dunno

What is The Zeitgeist Movement? -- below is copied & pasted

Started in late 2008, The Zeitgeist Movement exists as the communication and "Activist Arm" of an organization called The Venus Project. The Venus Project was started many decades ago by Social/Industrial Designer Jacque Fresco and his life's work has been to address and overcome the lack of sustainability existing currently across the world and work to incorporate new methods and values before it is too late. The basic pursuit of The Movement is to begin a transition into a new, sustainable social design called a “Resource-Based Economy”. This term was first coined by Jacque Fresco of the Venus Project and refers to an economic structure based exclusively on strategic resource management as the starting point for all decisions.

Basic Observations:
In the view of The Movement, the world today has become very detached from the physical world, with techniques of production and distribution that have no relationship to the environment. Our use of a profit based, “growth” driven monetary system has become one of the greatest destroyers of the natural world, not to mention sustainable human values. It is important to understand that the entire global economy requires “cyclical consumption” to operate, which means that money must constantly be circulating. Thus, new goods and services must be constantly introduced regardless of the state of the environment and actual human necessity. This "perpetual" approach has a fatal flaw, for resources as we know it are simply not infinite. Resources are finite and the Earth is essentially a closed system.
The true goal of any economy is to preserve - or "economize" - this is not occurring and cannot occur in a monetary driven system where labor for income requires consumer demand. We actually live in a global "anti-economy" by all rational standards.

Also, the intents inherent within a monetary system are counter progressive and derive a strategic edge from scarcity. This means that depleted resources are actually a positive thing for industry in the short term, for more money can be made off each respective unit. This is known as the basic law of supply & demand and hence “value” in economics. This creates a perverse reinforcement to ignore environmental problems and the negative consequences of scarcity, for it literally translates into profit. There is little intrinsic motivation to "solve" any problem or to make things that last in the current model. It is much more beneficial for jobs and hence profit to "service" things- not resolve them.

In other words, the system requires problems/constant consumer interest in order to work. The more people who have cancer in America, the better the economy due to expensive medical treatments. Needless to say, this generates an inherent disregard for human well being. The monetary arrangement, whether in the form of capitalism, communism, socialism, fascism, free-market or the like, is utterly detached from natural resources and thus human well-being. It is erroneously assumed that the incentive to seek money is also the incentive to help society. Nothing could be further from the truth. For example, every single product created by a corporation today is immediately inferior by design, for the market requirement to cut creation costs in favor of lowering the output "purchase price" to maintain a competitive edge, automatically reduces the quality of any given item by default. In other words it is impossible to create the “strategically best”, long lasting anything in our society and this translates into, again, outrageous amounts of resource waste. This is entirely and provably unsustainable as a social system and the world you are beginning to see emerge around you, with growing starvation, poverty, unemployment; along with the growing scarcity of water, food and arable land, is the result.

Likewise, most occupations are not directly related to the actual necessities of life. Rather, they are artificial concoctions in order to keep people employed so they can acquire purchasing power to keep cyclical consumption going. The very reality that each human being is required to be put in a position of servitude to a corporation or client in order to gain income to purchase the necessities of life also perpetuates extreme, needless waste... however, this time, it is the waste of the human mind and human life. In the modern world, advancements in science and technology have shown that we can automate a great deal. In fact, statistically speaking, the more we have applied mechanization to labor, the more productive things have become. Therefore, it is not only negligent for us to waste our lives waiting tables, working at a bus station, fixing cars, or other repetitive, monotonous jobs, it is also entirely irresponsible for us not to apply modern mechanization techniques to all industries possible for, apart from strategic resource management, this is a powerful way to achieve balance and abundance for all the world's people, reducing crime generating imbalances.

In other words, it is time to update society to present day knowledge, taking the carrying capacity of the earth into account and realigning our methods based not on the reward of monetary gain..but the goal of social sustainability as a whole.

Even with our current, destructive methods, the Earth is still abundant with resources. Today our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter-productive to the well-being of people. Today’s society has access to highly advanced technologies and can easily provide more than enough for a very high standard of living for all the earth’s people. This is possible through the implementation of a Resource-Based Economy.

A Resource-Based Economy utilizes existing resources rather than money, and provides an equitable method of distribution in the most humane and efficient manner for the entire population. It is a system in which all natural, man-made, machine-made, and synthetic resources would be available without the use of money, credits, barter, or any other form of symbolic exchange. A Resource-Based Economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, and the means of production, such as physical equipment and industrial plants, to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources, conservation and the most advanced methods of science and technology, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all. To do this, we have to overcome our current, outdated, establishment practices. This is the purpose of The Zeitgeist Movement- to create a global awareness to thus transition into a new, sustainable direction for humanity as a whole.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Feb 14, 2011 9:17am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: It's been worse before...maybe, maybe not...dunno

Thanks monte -

Not sure if you are a fan of ZMF and RBE or just posting info.

I am not a fan of RBE, but in fairness the Free Market Anarchy approach also has major shortcomings.

My biggest issue with RBE is the dependency on automated, central oversight computing and technology. Who writes the code to determine how things get distributed and who gets what? Who writes the code to select and prioritize distribution of a resource when there is only so much and there are equal, competing demands?

I don't see how an RBE approach would escape the fact that there is greed and corruption in the world - and before I commit to some emotionless AI, I would want to be assured that the code wasn't compromised by someone or some group with an agenda contrary to the common goals.

I also think the ZMF and VENUS Project followers fail to adequately address the fact that the population needs to get smaller before RBE would work. Who decides who stay and who reports to Carousel (go figure, a Logan's Run reference) or the Soylent Green riot scoops?

I suppose in a perfect world, a perfect RBE system would work. As would a perfect Free Market Anarchy approach. But since neither system will ever likely exist in perfection it comes down to picking which imperfect system is "less bad"

The unanswered questions regarding RBE, make me very reluctant to embrace it as a possible solution for the problems we face today. In some cases, the cure is worse than the disease.

And when you really get down to it, isn't ZMF and RBE just another name for automated socialism?

Not knocking it per se, but I haven't seen enough to warrant taking on the risk of the unknown fallout from attempting to implement RBE. I'd rather give us a chance to unfuck ourselves before submitting to a computer telling me to do so.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dead-head_Monte Date: Feb 14, 2011 11:26am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: It's been worse before...maybe, maybe not...dunno

Democracy Now! interview -- December 24, 2010
a few excerpts from Amy Goodman's interview are copied & pasted below:

Dr. Gabor Maté on the Stress-Disease Connection, Addiction, Attention Deficit Disorder and the Destruction of American Childhood

bio_nw_05.jpg

DR. GABOR MATÉ: Well, the human brain, unlike any other mammal, for the most part develops under the influence of the environment. And that’s because, from the evolutionary point of view, we developed these large heads, large fore-brains, and to walk on two legs we have a narrow pelvis. That means—large head, narrow pelvis—we have to be born prematurely. Otherwise, we would never get born. The head already is the biggest part of the body. Now, the horse can run on the first day of life. Human beings aren’t that developed for two years. That means much of our brain development, that in other animals occurs safely in the uterus, for us has to occur out there in the environment. And which circuits develop and which don’t depend very much on environmental input.

When people are mistreated, stressed or abused, their brains don’t develop the way they ought to. It’s that simple. And unfortunately, my profession, the medical profession, puts all the emphasis on genetics rather than on the environment, which, of course, is a simple explanation. It also takes everybody off the hook.

If people’s behaviors and dysfunctions are regulated, controlled and determined by genes, we don’t have to look at child welfare policies, we don’t have to look at the kind of support that we give to pregnant women, we don’t have to look at the kind of non-support that we give to families, so that, you know, most children in North America now have to be away from their parents from an early age on because of economic considerations. And especially in the States, because of the welfare laws, women are forced to go find low-paying jobs far away from home, often single women, and not see their kids for most of the day. Under those conditions, kids’ brains don’t develop the way they need to.

And so, if it’s all caused by genetics, we don’t have to look at those social policies; we don’t have to look at our politics that disadvantage certain minority groups, so cause them more stress, cause them more pain, in other words, more predisposition for addictions; we don’t have to look at economic inequalities. If it’s all genes, it’s all—we’re all innocent, and society doesn’t have to take a hard look at its own attitudes and policies.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to this point that you just raised about the destruction of American childhood. What do you mean by that?

DR. GABOR MATÉ: Well, the conditions in which children develop have been so corrupted and troubled over the last several decades that the template for normal brain development is no longer present for many, many kids. And Dr. Bessel Van der Kolk, who’s a professor of psychiatry at Boston—University of Boston, he actually says that the neglect or abuse of children is the number one public health concern in the United States. A recent study coming out of Notre Dame by a psychologist there has shown that the conditions for child development that hunter-gatherer societies provided for their children, which are the optimal conditions for development, are no longer present for our kids. And she says, actually, that the way we raise our children today in this country is increasingly depriving them of the practices that lead to well-being in a moral sense.

So what’s really going on here now is that the developmental conditions for healthy childhood psychological and brain development are less and less available, so that the issue of ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) is only a small part of the general issue that children are no longer having the support for the way they need to develop.

As I made the point in my book about addiction, as well, the human brain does not develop on its own, does not develop according to a genetic program, depends very much on the environment. And the essential condition for the physiological development of these brain circuits that regulate human behavior, that give us empathy, that give us a social sense, that give us a connection with other people, that give us a connection with ourselves, that allows us to mature—the essential condition for those circuits, for their physiological development, is the presence of emotionally available, consistently available, non-stressed, attuned parenting caregivers.

Now, what do you have in a country where the average maternity leave is six weeks? These kids don’t have emotional caregivers available to them. What do you have in a country where poor women, nearly 50 percent of them, suffer from postpartum depression? And when a woman has postpartum depression, she can’t be attuned to the child.

AMY GOODMAN: And what about fathers?

DR. GABOR MATÉ: Well, the situation with fathers is, is that increasingly—there was a study recently that showed an increasing number of men are having postpartum depression, as well. And the main role of the father, of course, would be to support the mother. But when people are—emotionally, because the cause of postpartum depression in the mother it is not intrinsic to the mother—not intrinsic to the mother.

What we have to understand here is that human beings are not discrete, individual entities, contrary to the free enterprise myth that people are competitive, individualistic, private entities. What people actually are are social creatures, very much dependent on one another and very much programmed to cooperate with one another when the circumstances are right. When that’s not available, if the support is not available for women, that’s when they get depressed. When the fathers are stressed, they’re not supporting the women in that really important, crucial bonding role in the beginning. In fact, they get stressed and depressed themselves.

The child’s brain development depends on the presence of non-stressed, emotionally available parents. In this country, that’s less and less available. Hence, you’ve got burgeoning rates of autism in this country. It’s going up like 20- or 30-fold in the last 30 or 40 years.


Creative Commons LicenseThe original content of the DemocracyNow! programs are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.


CBS Documentary - Hippie Temptation - 1967
these are THE 1967 roots The Boys laid down with "the rest of us"

default.jpgJerry Garcia:
What we're thinking about is a peaceful planet. We're not thinking of anything else. We're not thinking about any kind of power. We're not thinking about any of those kinds of struggles. We're not thinking about revolution or war or any of that. That's not what we want. Nobody wants to get hurt. Nobody wants to hurt anybody. We would all like to be able to live an uncluttered life, a simple life, a good life and think about moving the whole human race ahead a step.

Phil Lesh:
I think that personally, the more people that turn on, the better world it's gonna be.

Bob Weir:
You can point out the example that the people that live in the community and play around with dope and stuff like that - they don't have wars, you know. And they don't have a lot of the problems that alot of society has.

Phil Lesh:
In essence, the scene has grown up with us, and we have grown up with the scene. We've all grown up together.

this pic was shot on the day CBS filmed
the 1967 Hippie Temptation documentary
dead-head_Monte-gd-60s-04.jpg



This post was modified by dead-head_Monte on 2011-02-14 19:26:43

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Edsel Date: Feb 14, 2011 12:25pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: It's been worse before...maybe, maybe not...dunno

Thanks Monte, I needed a good chuckle.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Feb 15, 2011 10:04am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: It's been worse before...maybe, maybe not...dunno

Interesting but one should always be wary of "sky is falling" stuff about the destruction of childhood, especially when it includes nonsense about how Stone Age childrearing methods will solve everything, save the planet etc.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Feb 15, 2011 10:17am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: It's been worse before...maybe, maybe not...dunno

"Well, the human brain, unlike any other mammal, for the most part develops under the influence of the environment."

Lost me right there. Anyone who can be so bone-headed as to think that the environment plays no part in the development of the non-human mammalian brain is not asking to be taken seriously.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Feb 14, 2011 10:16am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: It's been worse before...maybe, maybe not...dunno

Thx for taking it as intended; bottom line is it is ALWAYS better for folks to be THINKING, and there is far too little of that going on these days. I do agree, that things have to change, and the "system(s)" are so fundamentally outta whack that it seems it HAS to happen this time...one can hope (er, dread?) it will, and have more long-term positive developments, but I do think there will be significantly larger downsides ("nastiness") to the next big evolutionary transition.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Feb 14, 2011 11:41am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: It's been worse before...maybe, maybe not...dunno

So long and thanks for all the fish.




(edit: apologies to Mr. Adams)

This post was modified by SomeDarkHollow on 2011-02-14 19:41:21

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dead-head_Monte Date: Feb 14, 2011 9:18am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: It's been worse before...maybe, maybe not...dunno

Transition Communities movements

Fort Collins "Transition movement" is slowly gaining momentum -- see Transition Fort Collins

Ranked Voting movement -- see Fort Collins Ranked Voting

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Feb 14, 2011 9:32am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: It's been worse before...maybe, maybe not...dunno

Now this??? I am all over the Transition Town movement.

If I had unlimited resources (sheesh, I haven't been listening to myself at all in this thread have I?), I would build a scaled version of Will Allen's project at Growing Power, Inc in Milwaukee.

http://www.growingpower.org/

You could build an entire community around one of these - and raise enough food to feed 10,000 people per month off of 2 acres.

In downtown, urban Milwaukee.

Will Allen is my hero.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: duckpond74 Date: Feb 14, 2011 9:21am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: It's been worse before...maybe, maybe not...dunno

I was given a video on/by The Venus Project a few years back. All I remember were the plans, designs and drawings of designer Jacque Fresco which I found to be intriguing - especially as I had recently watched 'The World Of Tomorrow', a visual documentary on the 1939 New York World Fair. I should dig it out to see if there was any of their socio-economic philosophy discussed.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: amyh0303@gmail.com Date: Feb 17, 2011 8:46am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: It's been worse before...maybe, maybe not...dunno

I think this is the worst time that our Earth has suffered through as the Petrolocracy is raping our mother of her precious gifts!!! And the humans that are suffering too! We want to help people get out from underneath the military-industrial complex. Hi! I'm Amy and my husband, Scott, and I have formed a charitable trust. We are in our early 30's and we have a big dream to use the plans of architect Michael Reynolds to build self-sustainable housing from recycled materials(bottles, cans, and mostly tires!) So far, we only have the tax ID# and a piece of land in Castillo County CO. We are fundraising in as many ways as we can (not soliciting here) but just trying to make contact with some kind people. We have a friend in Australia that suggested we contact Bear and your posts keep coming up. Weird? Well I do not believe in coincidence. So we call ourselves F.O.U.N.T. and that's Fundamental Operations Unifying Natural Truths. We just want to help people get back to living. Further, I am so stoked to have all of this great music to listen to and I have some rare tracks to ask about. The Bob rap of Fire on the Mountain...is it in here some where. I will look around just wanted to say HI!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: hasher Date: Feb 13, 2011 5:38pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Peak Oil/IMF SDR Observations For BD (Very Non-Dead)


Now I really wanna know who killed the electric car!


Great info. Thanks for the effort.


Btw, I don't think it's a good idea for everyone to just give up and say "Oh well, I'll go to heaven when I die so let the world go to hell.".

Let's have a positive attitude and make real attempts at positive changes.

I think the religious beliefs that the world is inherently evil and should be and will be destroyed by God or man that's part of the problem.

Hopefully people will wake up and there will be a radical shift in consciousness for the majority of people and together we will kill the GREED that's destroying our world and not the world itself.

This may be naive. But it is far better to be positive and work for a better future than to give up and wait for the end.

These are just my opinions. Prepare for the apocolypse if you must. You won't be the first or last to do so.

Peace.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Feb 13, 2011 6:03pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Peak Oil/IMF SDR Observations For BD (Very Non-Dead)

"This may be naive. But it is far better to be positive and work for a better future than to give up and wait for the end."

Outstanding hasher. Really. It's so hard to make sure all the thoughts banging around inside my head either don't leak, or they leak when they were supposed to.

I guess the point that I was trying to make (and apparently wasn't too clear) was that I think there is some merit in working on setting yourself up to ease the transition between when it gets bad and the time spent on establishing the better future. If I don't have to worry as much about my family and friends, I can look to help others right?

Excellent observation and I'm glad you made the point.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: srtg83 Date: Feb 13, 2011 8:06pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Peak Oil/IMF SDR Observations For BD (Very Non-Dead)

Good stuff Mando. However, is there any other scenario other than scenes from Mad Max? Where do we go from here? As China and India further industrialize and discover consuming meat, what is the next new source of energy? Certainly up here in the great white north with the federal leadership from Alberta, there is no hope. I have not given up on your republic yet... but that may be naive.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Feb 13, 2011 8:38pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Peak Oil/IMF SDR Observations For BD (Very Non-Dead)

srtg83 -

Not naive, but maybe a little on the hopeful side - and I'm with you, I hope for a different outcome.

I think the outcome will be fractional shades of Mad Max. The one good thing to remember is when things go to hell fast, it catches everyone. We have shown ourselves to be a pretty resilient group. So I think there will be a predominant realization that, whatever "it" turns out to be, we are all in it together.

Just as we have to ability to reach new depths of inhumanity, I am also comforted when we demonstrate the things we are able to accomplish when our backs are against the wall.

I think we will see localization of trade and cooperation - the "state" is going to be necessarily downsized. We are going to realize that the old method of "defer everything to the centralized national level government" isn't going to work anymore. For people in more rural areas, they are probably already living in a manner that can function with less oversight and regulation beyond the local level. I consider myself fortunate that I am pretty close (geographically) to an area of SE Virginia that can make the transition. It will be bumpy, but I think it can be done.

The land in NC near Asheville, and in TN near Murfreesboro is there as a back-up plan. But as hasher pointed out, it's better to try and be part of the solution than to bunker up and wait for the end. In that light, I think I can honestly say I'd rather die trying. I'm not in that position yet so I can't say with certainty what I would do.

I think the areas in proximity to urban population concentrations are going to have it rougher. People are going to be more desperate - and desperate people do desperate things. There will be too many people to be able to help all of them and I think these areas are where the ugliest behavior is going to occur.

The challenge for us is to get ourselves as ready as we think we need to be so we can be in a position to help if and when we need to.

I don't know what it's like up in the Great White North, but down here, life for many is rough when their TiVo is full and they can't record the latest brain vacuuming exploits detailing the crusties in Snookie's underwear. They won't notice something is amiss until their Direct TV feed is lost and then it will be too late. That's when those kooky people with the guns and gardens won't seem so kooky anymore.

I don't know, part of me wishes it would all go away and be better - but I think I am going to see some monumental changes in this world in my lifetime. And I hope that I live long enough to see the good that comes after the rough stuff.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Feb 13, 2011 5:44pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Peak Oil/IMF SDR Observations For BD (Very Non-Dead)

Mando - THANK YOU SO MUCH! I'm developing a serious man crush, but until they really get rid of DADT, I'll keep it to myself. Thanks again- a lot to chew on. I wish I could say I thought your analysis was flawed, but first read (and I'll come back to this) has me agreeing with every point.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Feb 13, 2011 3:41pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Peak Oil/IMF SDR Observations For BD (Very Non-Dead)

You make it sound like i should stop with 401Ks and investing in my kids 529 accounts and start buying gold and Spam (the meat..sort of, not junk email).

I hope your wrong, but i am afraid that you argument makes too much sense.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dead-head_Monte Date: Feb 13, 2011 3:38pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Peak Oil/IMF SDR Observations For BD (Very Non-Dead)

Why did President George W. Bush -- a.k.a. "Dubya" -- introduce Nukes into Saudi Arabia?

Cheap Energy, selling more Weapons, and making huge profits for the Military Industrial Complex's Ponzi-scheme